Liyanage v Gampola U.C. 1991 1 Sri LR 1
Manohara de Silva PC, A Wijesundara
Faiz Musthapha, Faizer Marker, Thushani Machado
M.A. Sumanthiran, E. Keegal
Dilshan Kayasuriya
Prasantha Lal de Silva
J.C. Weliamuna
Razick PC with U. L. M. Mowjood for 2 intervenient petitioners.
Iqbal Mohamedwith M. I. M. Ishan for 2 intervenient petitioners.
Iqbal Mohamed with M. I. M. Nazeer for 2 intervenient petitioners.
Nimal Fernando PC with Rajendra Jayasinghe and Gamini Perera for 1
intervenient petitioner
Uditha Egalahewawith Ranga Dayananda for 2 intervenient petitioners
Kumarasinghe for 2 intervenient petitioners
Palitha Kumarasinghe PC with Priyantha Abeyagunawardane for 2
intervenient petitioners
Upul Jayasuriya with Lelum Kumarasinghe and M. Madhubashini
for 3 interventent petitioners
Wijewardane and Wishva Mettananda for 3 intervenient petitioners
Sanjeewa with Sandamali Chandrasirifor 1 intervenient petitioner
Kushan de Alwis with Kaushalya Nawaratne for 3 intervenient
petitioners
Pubudinie Wickremaratne for 1 intervenient petitioner
Vishwa Gunaratne w ith Lasitha Chaminda for 1 intervenient
petitioner
Prasanthalal de Alwis with Sampath Gamage for 1 intervenient
petitioner
Mrs. Jayasinghe B. Tillakaratne D S G w ith Sudharshi Herath
SC for 1st – 4th, 6th – 8th, 12th respondents.
FR Application allowed.
[2009] 1 SLR 54
The petitioner alleged that the decision taken by the respondents to alienate about 60 Acres of land located 13 km to the South of the Deegavapi Raja Maha Viharaya (one of the 16 most venerated sites of Buddhists in Sri Lanka), to 500 Muslim famiies, infringes the rights guaranteed under article 10 and 12. Their contention was that the settlement of a large number of Muslims in the area would infringe the freedom of religion.
Discrimination: economic, political, criminal justice.
(1) ‘State land is held by the executive in trust for the People and may be alienated only as permitted by law…impugned alienation is bereft of any legal authority and has been effected in a process which is not bona fide.’ (2) ‘On the preceding analysis of evidence, the Petitioners have established an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 12 (1), 12 (1) and 10 of the Constitution.